IMPORTANT: JREF Forums is now the International Skeptics Forum. If you are a past member of the JREF Forums you must agree to the new terms and conditions to post, send PMs, or continue to use the forum as a member. You can view them here, or you will be presented with them when you try to make a post or PM or similar.

Your private information was removed in transferring to the new forum. If you'd like to import it please see the instructions in this thread to approve transfer.
If you are having problems accessing the Forum you can contact Darat at isforum@internationalskeptics.com, please include your username and forum email address in any email.
NOTE:** TAPATALK access is currently disabled **. This is just while we work out how to ensure people have to agree to the T&Cs before posting here via Tapatalk

Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

What tests did they want to do? When you looked for a lab, did you not look for a lab that could replicate the Bentham tests?

It is about replicating tests others have done, and trying to answer Harrit´s question about a proposed "prosaic substance". Also testing Kminek gray layer hypothesis for iron spheres.

It does seem a little strange that he would not do this since he was heating them to nearly ignition temperature anyway.

JTL,

Obviously, as I said, I did not ask them to replicate the bentham test. I asked them to determine if there was thermitic material in red-grey chips from the WTC dust. If so, what would they do to make this determination? Often they would say, we have this machine or that machine so we'll try that. I don't remember what tests they offered, they were just off the mark. I know because I would ask other labs if that were a good idea and they would say no that is not the protocol. Many labs blew me off entirely.

How can you ask someone to replicate the Bentham paper without showing them the paper? Why is it strange that Millette did not want to destroy the chips he was analyzing by igniting them? And BTW I am hoping Millette does complete his paper (he says he wants to) and that he looks at the iron microspheres and pssibkle sources.

Obviously, as I said, I did not ask them to replicate the bentham test. I asked them to determine if there was thermitic material in red-grey chips from the WTC dust. If so, what would they do to make this determination? Often they would say, we have this machine or that machine so we'll try that. I don't remember what tests they offered, they were just off the mark. I know because I would ask other labs if that were a good idea and they would say no that is not the protocol. Many labs blew me off entirely.

There's a connection between the two highlighted portions.

Asking labs to examine an unknown substance that could potentially be a dangerous material such as thermite will result in a negative response. Why would any lab bring potentially dangerous material into their business? As soon as WTC dust or 9/11 is mentioned then you are automatically a nutter and to be given a very wide berth. Think about it from the lab's perspective;

They are dealing with a nutter who wants them to confirm or not that he has a dangerous substance.

We talked about this at the time.

If you want a lab to investigate then they will do so using the techniques that they think will solve the problem based upon their vast professional experience and the equipment available. Truthers automatically ignore the experience, the definitive analytical techniques that actually tell you exactly what the material is and instead shift the point to irrelevance by moaning about certain pointless and irrelevant tests not being done.

Originally Posted by chrismohr

How can you ask someone to replicate the Bentham paper without showing them the paper? Why is it strange that Millette did not want to destroy the chips he was analyzing by igniting them? And BTW I am hoping Millette does complete his paper (he says he wants to) and that he looks at the iron microspheres and pssibkle sources.

If you show the Betham paper to a lab they will just laugh at you behind your back and you will be classed as a fruitloop. The paper is worthless. If you want professional opinions on that paper then mail it to a number of materials science academics politely requesting them to read it and give you feedback. Remember this 9/11 conspiracy stuff is not normal - the whole idea is nonsense from top to bottom. It's a minor miracle that you were able to get anything done especially as you had no samples to start with.

It doesn't matter what Millette does or whether he completes his paper and has it published - his results will be ignored by truthers.

For example take the reason why Millette used an ashing technique to remove the organic material so he could then perform TEM analysis on the particles that remained. The truthers are equating this with DSC and are complaining about the temperature he did the ashing at. It's been explained to them dozens of times why Millette did this. Millette's been quoted time after time after time saying exactly why he did this; the words are there in black and white in the progress report, yet the truthers just ignore it and moan about DSC.

This is why I never put a penny toward Millette's study - it wasn't required, it gives credence to Harrit et al and truthers, it will be ignored and lastly we know that the material is red paint adhered to rust because that's what the data tells us.

Mohr: How can you ask someone to replicate the Bentham paper without showing them the paper?

What are you talking about? That someone has to read the paper. But if you are going to outsource the DSC test to someone else, make sure that lab does blind tests.

Quote:

Why is it strange that Millette did not want to destroy the chips he was analyzing by igniting them?

???Millette is the only one that destroyed samples with his "ashing" at 400 instead of trying to ignite them going up to 450. The ignition tests are required not the ashing, and the ignition tests do not prevent analysis because that is done before ignition.

Quote:

And BTW I am hoping Millette does complete his paper (he says he wants to) and that he looks at the iron microspheres and pssibkle sources.

You do not sound very certain that he will complete the paper.

Do you know why it is important that those spheres are iron while the chips had iron oxide before ignition?

Quote:

Sunstealer: If you show the Betham paper to a lab they will just laugh at you behind your back and you will be classed as a fruitloop. The paper is worthless.

One more thing Mohr, as has been noted many times, this kind of bloated farting and hand-waving displayed by some of your buddies here has nothing to do with science. I used to ignore the Bentham paper but someone pestered me for so long that when I had an opportunity to see a lecture by Harrit I did see his university lecture in a hall full of chemists and professors. The paper was taken seriously and you should try some time to see what real scientific discussions are about, instead of the hogwash seen on this forum. The paper is sound but it can still be proven wrong with more research. That will not be done by ignoring the most important result in the paper, the evidence for reduction after ignition.

... One more thing Mohr, as has been noted many times, this kind of bloated farting and hand-waving displayed by some of your buddies here has nothing to do with science. I used to ignore the Bentham paper but someone pestered me for so long that when I had an opportunity to see a lecture by Harrit I did see his university lecture in a hall full of chemists and professors. The paper was taken seriously and you should try some time to see what real scientific discussions are about, instead of the hogwash seen on this forum. The paper is sound but it can still be proven wrong with more research. That will not be done by ignoring the most important result in the paper, the evidence for reduction after ignition.

Harrit is nuts, he did not fool anyone. Fellow chemist and professors are very nice and polite. They know Harrit is nuts. How many tons of thermite did Harrit use in his fantasy? Hiding behind science to fool a few dolts in 911 truth is standard for this kind of fraud.

Jones' paper is fraud. Thermite was not used on 911. The paper proves it was not thermite. The DSC shows thermite is not a match to the chips. I guess a few people might fall for the lies of Jones and Harrit, and they have no clue what the purpose of DSC is. 911 truth and thermite believers are gullible.

The iron rich spheres are the sign of woo. I can make them from many means and material. Anyone who thinks iron rich spheres mean thermite have failed, never took chemistry and can't think outside the box of 911 truth, a lock box full of woo.

What a waste; no thermite evidence on any steel. Harrit's conclusion is nonsense. When 911 truth denies that fact, it reflects great ignorance in chemistry, a failure and lack of critical thinking skills.

Millette should save his time and let his paper die, Gage could use the help to keep his gravy-train flowing. What silly waste. 911 truth is too easy to fool. Jones shows DSC traces that don't match thermite, calls it thermite and 911 truth accepts the lie. Got to have DSC. And they have no clue what DSC is. 911 truth only takes on the fertile ground of ignorance.

What are you talking about? That someone has to read the paper. But if you are going to outsource the DSC test to someone else, make sure that lab does blind tests.

???Millette is the only one that destroyed samples with his "ashing" at 400 instead of trying to ignite them going up to 450. The ignition tests are required not the ashing, and the ignition tests do not prevent analysis because that is done before ignition.

You do not sound very certain that he will complete the paper.

Do you know why it is important that those spheres are iron while the chips had iron oxide before ignition?

One more thing Mohr, as has been noted many times, this kind of bloated farting and hand-waving displayed by some of your buddies here has nothing to do with science. I used to ignore the Bentham paper but someone pestered me for so long that when I had an opportunity to see a lecture by Harrit I did see his university lecture in a hall full of chemists and professors. The paper was taken seriously and you should try some time to see what real scientific discussions are about, instead of the hogwash seen on this forum. The paper is sound but it can still be proven wrong with more research. That will not be done by ignoring the most important result in the paper, the evidence for reduction after ignition.

Now here is a post from someone who is getting very upset about Millette's work.
Yet another truther who can't understand why Jones & Co have not given any scientific response to Millette's work.

Why do you keep begging for Millette to replicate the Bentham paper, why not beg Jones for some sort of response.

You are making yourself look a fool with your bloated farting and hand waving.

Fig. (25). Spheres formed during ignition of red/gray chip in DSC, with corresponding typical XEDS spectrum (although spheres with predominately iron and some oxygen are also seen in the post-ignition residue).

This picture is not from burned chips, it is from concrete dust.

Fig. (23). Silvery-gray spheroids (left) are seen after the ignition test of red/gray chip from sample 1; some of the porous red material remains; both can be seen in the corresponding SEM image (right).

In paint can be found many substances: Eg. in Kaolin, which is extracted from Kaolinite, it is such. in Georgia in a big way.
Al2O3
SiO2
Fe2O3 (added to coverage / color)
TiO2 (also known as Titaniumwhiteninger)
CaO
MgO (in very small quantities)
Na2O (in fact, a pollution)
And many other substances but in very small quantities (Uranium, Thorium, Lead, Chromium, Potassium) (possibly from fly ash, which can also be mixed into the paint)
Pure Al powder (pigments) (ie elemental Al) is widely used in paints. Available at drugstore for exactly this, if you want to mix yourself.

The paint must be so tied together:

It may be cellulose, turpentine, but it can also be a mixture of 5-10% of the resin / rest turpentine, turpentine which evaporates in a short time.
The resin is returned, and it can only? dissolved by alcohol.
But not in a MEK solution, so far as I know.
Turpentine-based oil paints are not miscible with cellulose based paints, I do not know why.
But they burn well, even after they have dried up, with the vigorous development of black smoke.

we sure have noticed the similarity of those spheres with stuff found in flyash - but also with particles in other and generic ashes. What makes you so sure it has to be flyash? Do you have relevant professional and/or academic expertise in such analysis, or any references to cite?

Also, I think we should be careful to commit to a very specific conclusion as long as other possibilities aren't ruled out. That is, after all, the main error Jones and his fanboys commit when they argue that there had to be thermite because it's the "only" thing that creates "iron spheres".

Your allegation that Fig 25 (larger version of BSE image) "is not from burned chips, it is from concrete dust" is pretty strong, it almost amounts to alleging scientific fraud (the only alternative being serious confusion). So far I have argued from a base assumption that all there data really is what it is and is basically good. I have argued that their data can't be doctored because it really refutes their own conclusions. Had they attempted to fake or manipulate data such that it actually supported their conclusions, then why doesn't it? (Actually, I have doubted that Fig 17 is what they claim it is)

So, Carsten, can you substantiate that claim further? What do you see in that image that is typical for concrete dust, but isn't for burned paint with stuff attached to it?

In paint can be found many substances: Eg. in Kaolin, which is extracted from Kaolinite, it is such. in Georgia in a big way.
Al2O3
SiO2
Fe2O3 (added to coverage / color)
TiO2 (also known as Titaniumwhiteninger)
CaO
MgO (in very small quantities)
Na2O (in fact, a pollution)
And many other substances but in very small quantities (Uranium, Thorium, Lead, Chromium, Potassium) (possibly from fly ash, which can also be mixed into the paint)
Pure Al powder (pigments) (ie elemental Al) is widely used in paints. Available at drugstore for exactly this, if you want to mix yourself.

The paint must be so tied together:

It may be cellulose, turpentine, but it can also be a mixture of 5-10% of the resin / rest turpentine, turpentine which evaporates in a short time.
The resin is returned, and it can only? dissolved by alcohol.
But not in a MEK solution, so far as I know.
Turpentine-based oil paints are not miscible with cellulose based paints, I do not know why.
But they burn well, even after they have dried up, with the vigorous development of black smoke.

Carsten:
You mentioned "cellulose paints", which could be used as other kind of paints in WTC, but I should refine this stuff and perhaps I should add first some general remarks as for solubility of linear (not cross-linked) polymers.

Like for other substances, the solubility of polymers keeps the old rule "similia similibus solvuntur". We can divide polymers roughly into three categories, according to their "polarity", which is manifested e.g. by their dielectric constants.

- Non-polar polymers like polystyrene, polyolefines, did not contain any organic polar groups like hydroxyls, acyls, amides, esters, carbonyls, etc. They contain only aliphatic and aromatic non-polar moieties. Therefore they are best dissolved in non-polar solvents like toluene, fluorinated alkanes (polyolefines), but also in tetrahydrofuran (THF), which is just slightly polar solvent etc.

- Polymers with moderate polarity like polymethylmethacrylate, polyvinylacetate or esters of cellulose, with moderately polar groups like esters, carbonyls. Hence they dissolve best in moderately polar solvents like e.g. acetone, MEK, chloroform, tetrahydrofuran, but also they are sometiimes soluble in polar aprotic solvents like dimethylformamide (DMF) of dimethylsulfoxide (DMS).

- Polymers with high polarity like polyvinylalcohol, polyacryclic acid, polyacrylic acid sodium salt, or e.g. linear cellulose, bearing highly polar e.g. hydroxyl groups, acyl groups or their salts. They are best soluble in highly polar solvents like alcohols, acetonitrile, in polar aprotic DMF, DMS, but even in water sometimes (and in tetrahydrofuran).

I emphasize: all this deals with the solubility of linear polymers. Densely crosslinked polymers like epoxy in Laclede WTC primer can not be dissolved in any solvent, no matter how proper is this solvent as regards its polarity.(There are also other causes of polymer insolubility, like too strong interaction of aromatic groups in rather "exotic" conjugated polymers and "highly aromatic" polymers ("pi-stacking"), but this is out of the scope here).
Also, I can add one practical remark (after I have dissolved thousands of various polymers by myself: by far the most universal, almost miraculous solvent for polymers is tetrahydrofuran: it dissolves many non-polar polymers as well as polar ones, including e.g. polyvinylchloride, which is otherwise soluble only in cyclohexanone.

And now back to cellulose. In paints, not cellulose itsef is usually employed, but its esters are used: nitrates of cellulose (nitrocellulose) or acetates (butyrates) of cellulose. The solubility of these stuffs depends on the degree of esterification ("concentration" of nitrate or acetate groups). With this degree increasing, the solubility in highly polar alcohol(s) decreases, whereas solubility in moderately polar solvents like acetone or MEK increases. E.g., nitrocellulose is frequently dissolved not in alcohol itself, but in the mixture of ether and alcohol (this mixture is less polar), forming viscous solution called collodion.
So we can not simply say: cellulose paint binders are soluble in alcohol(s) but not e.g. in acetone, the matter is much more complicated in fact

...one correction, nitrates of cellulose had not been frequently used in paints, they are indeed highly flammable, but they had been massively employed as films of e.g. Celluloid in movie industry. But I've tried basically to compare solubilities of these esters of cellulose, not speaking about actual applications. Nitrates of cellulose are too dangerous as paint binders

I am a Plummer/water/heat/sanitet as well as engineer in buildingconstruction* and insulator and firefighter. I also worked as carpenter(not educated though).
*I believe it is called Bachelor in structurel engineering.

I am a Plummer/water/heat/sanitet as well as engineer in buildingconstruction* and insulator and firefighter. I also worked as carpenter(not educated though).
*I believe it is called Bachelor in structurel engineering.

The xeds spectra contain all the elements you would find in flyash.
...
So when I read the article 3 years ago, I said to my self, they found concrete.

You find the same elements simply everywhere in an urban environment, in many types of ashes, and other mixed materials where minerals and organics come together. Flyash is a possibilty, but far from the only.

Originally Posted by Carsten from Denmark

However all these elements is also used in paint, maybe with the exception of flyash.

But do we know, that they didn't use flyash as a filler in paint, it was a cheap filler in cement back then, still is.

The paints we are mostly looking at here, the WTC steel primers from Tnemec and LaClede, don't have flyash specified as filler, and also no provision for unspecified filler, so I'd say it's rather unlikely they did contain flyash.

As for other paints that may end up as magnetically attracted red-gray chips, I don't know.

Originally Posted by Carsten from Denmark

If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck....... then it is a CD... to quote Niels Harrit.

Yes, and he is wrong, as you know, so be careful not to jump to conclusions the same way and be wrong, too!

Originally Posted by Carsten from Denmark

"Your allegation that Fig 25 (larger version of BSE image) "is not from burned chips, it is from concrete dust" is pretty strong, it almost amounts to alleging scientific fraud."

I have googled lots of flyash/cement/concrete SEM images and the corresponding xeds spectra and in my opinion, they look as figur 25, 27 and perhaps 21.

Figur 27 is 100% flyash.

Again, lots of ashes can have particles and spectra like that. Don't think that googling will give you 100% certainty!

Originally Posted by Carsten from Denmark

In figur 23 and 26 there are not perpectly shaped spheres.

You realize that these two images show the same chip specimen?

Originally Posted by Carsten from Denmark

But in figur 25 they are perfect.

Again, such spheres can form in many combustion events. You find them in ash from burning household waste. Those spheres in Figure 25 probably have more silicate than iron oxide (judging from their relatively dark gray shade); such spheres can form in quite ordinary temperatures.

Originally Posted by Carsten from Denmark

Figur 24 (commercial thermite) It must have been very contaminated to start with. ( see xeds)

"… I emailed millette and told him i would provide the money for another muffle furnace test at 450C but have had no reply.

I think the guys here on the forum and Millette are afraid to go to the 430Cish temp."

Originally Posted by jtl

"It does seem a little strange that he would not do this since he was heating them to nearly ignition temperature anyway."

Originally Posted by chrismohr

"How can you ask someone to replicate the Bentham paper without showing them the paper? Why is it strange that Millette did not want to destroy the chips he was analyzing by igniting them? And BTW I am hoping Millette does complete his paper (he says he wants to) and that he looks at the iron microspheres and pssibkle sources."

You originally lead us to believe that Dr. Millette would attempt a replication of the most salient tests performed by the Bentham Paper scientists.

And then you pretended to be just as fooled as the rest of us, when days before his research presentation, Dr. Millette made it clear he had absolutely no intention of performing DSC testing.

This is particularly strange Chris when considering your claim of having discussed the ability to do DSC testing with dozens of other labs.

Dr. Millette had the same access to the Bentham Paper as anyone with a decent Internet connection. Just the fact that he did not attempt any Resistivity Testing or Heat testing above 400C on the red layers points to his clear lack of interest in following the Paper.

Dr. Millette did not have to completely destroy the chips. He could have divided chips and only performed destructive testing (heated above 430C) on half, leaving the remaining halves for comparison.

Again, such an approach was obvious, but Dr. Millette risked making a discovery which would not be particularly good for his business relationship with the U.S. Government.

Hoping that Dr. Millette will do the right thing now would seem to be little more than trash talk.

I suspect that given his easy access to WTC dust samples, the ease in which he could isolate chips of interest with Resistivity testing, and the fact that he could easily set his oven to +430C and observe the ignition residue, that he has already done some of this testing and knows what a Pandora's Box it is.

I wouldn't go as far as calling MM a disinfo agent, but his posts seem to become more and more aimed at generally discrediting the scientific reputation of the truth movement.

Are you a thermite believer, or a standard poe?

911 truth is a failed movement, where knowledge is banned. You can't discredit something that does not exist; there is no science in 911 truth, 911 truth only has dumbed down delusions, so idiotic only a few fringe believe.

Millette found no thermite. Which was proved many years ago, when no thermite evidence was found on WTC steel. 911 truth will never comprehend reality, but 911 truth is a fleeting distraction to a few people who can learn, and understand. Those intelligent being will leave 911 truth, and have a lesson learned. Those who persist in belief in 911 truth lies, are lost.

What did Millette find? No thermite. What was on WTC steel, no thermite. BINGO

You originally lead us to believe that Dr. Millette would attempt a replication of the most salient tests performed by the Bentham Paper scientists.

And then you pretended to be just as fooled as the rest of us, when days before his research presentation, Dr. Millette made it clear he had absolutely no intention of performing DSC testing.

This is particularly strange Chris when considering your claim of having discussed the ability to do DSC testing with dozens of other labs.

Dr. Millette had the same access to the Bentham Paper as anyone with a decent Internet connection. Just the fact that he did not attempt any Resistivity Testing or Heat testing above 400C on the red layers points to his clear lack of interest in following the Paper.

Dr. Millette did not have to completely destroy the chips. He could have divided chips and only performed destructive testing (heated above 430C) on half, leaving the remaining halves for comparison.

Again, such an approach was obvious, but Dr. Millette risked making a discovery which would not be particularly good for his business relationship with the U.S. Government.

Hoping that Dr. Millette will do the right thing now would seem to be little more than trash talk.

I suspect that given his easy access to WTC dust samples, the ease in which he could isolate chips of interest with Resistivity testing, and the fact that he could easily set his oven to +430C and observe the ignition residue, that he has already done some of this testing and knows what a Pandora's Box it is.

MM

MM if I led you to believe that I asked Millette to follow the Bentham protocol, I am sorry. I have no memory of making such a claim. I clearly remember asking him if he could find the red-grey chips on his own, if hwe would like the chips fromk Kevin Ryan if I could get them, and then I asked the question, "Can you determine if the red-grey chips are thermitic?" My interest in seeing a DSC test comes from YOUR interest in it, and I am not at all convinced that the DSC test would I.D. the chips as thermite. As I have recently said, the readings graphs of energy release from the DSC tests of known thermitic material vs the red-grey chips in the bentham paper shows a tremendous difference, a factor of at least three times more energy release. It shows me nothing even remotely close to a match to nanothermite! JTL has said that this is because of variations in the samples or whatever, and I say, therefore it tells us nothing. The FTIR and other tests DO show us that gthe red-grey chips are NOT thermite. Until Kevin Ryan or Steven Jones release chips they believe are thermitic for testing, I will no longer waste time responding to your claim that Millette found the wrong chips.

Carsten: I agree with Oystein: if the "Bentham microspheres" were present already in the unheated chips, it would be a direct and blatant scientific fraud. And since they are still presented/believed to be a "crucial proof" of nanothemite by truthers, including Jones and, they were very probably formed really during heating in DSC.
After all, chips for DSC had to contain gray layers (since they had to be "typical red/gray chips") which dissappeared after heating, and there is no specific reason why to think that e.g. fly-ash microspheres formed during WTC fires should be frequently and firmly sticked just to the WTC paint layers, like we see in Bentham paper. Hence, their origin is probably chips themselves.

As for XEDS of thermite residues, it's perhaps funny, but I've not found any other XEDS than this one in Bentham paper on the net. Of course, Bentham XEDS is hardly representative, since pure aluminothermite should give only Fe, Al and O peaks. Si peak, which is larger than Al peak, remains unexplained and the whole XEDS looks like a typical spectrum of e.g. iron-richer fly ash particles.
I think that this silicon could come at least partially from the substrate, on which this thermite was ignited (some ceramics, glass, brick, concrete... who knows). But I can be wrong...
[b]

Senenmut, MM, jtl: Please, try to remember, that during any potential replication of heating experiments from Bentham paper, the chips must be heated not to 430 or 450 degrees C, (as you perhaps think?) but to 700 degrees C! (using the same or very similar heating rate indeed)

like I said, flyash is one possibility, and to some extent, your image citation proves that flyash is a candidate. And I'd say: Not a bad candidate for Fig. 28 at all!

BUT Fig 26 almost certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with flyash! Remember that these red-gray paint chips atmost might contain some flyash (while most do not), but a spheric blob found after a heating experiment wouldn't be very likely to be an original sphere from the flyash contained in such a specimen.

Instead, the "left-most microsphere" depicted in Fig. 26 seems to have formed on the edge of the chip, where red and gray layers meet. Unfortunately they haven't drawn a rectangle indication the exact spot measured; but I'd suspect that this particular SEM electron beam "saw" both some iron oxide from the gray oxidized steel and calcium aluminates and silica from the reduced red layer.

Again, while spheres with XEDS spectra like some shown in the Harrit paper frequently do occur in flyash, that is not the only place and situation where you find them. Such spheres, with varying proportions of Fe, Al, Si and Ca, form almost always when you burn mixed stuff containing both organic fuel and ordinary minerals.
Coal fits the bill.
Wood fits the bill.
Household waste fits the bill.

"You originally lead us to believe that Dr. Millette would attempt a replication of the most salient tests performed by the Bentham Paper scientists.

And then you pretended to be just as fooled as the rest of us, when days before his research presentation, Dr. Millette made it clear he had absolutely no intention of performing DSC testing.

This is particularly strange Chris when considering your claim of having discussed the ability to do DSC testing with dozens of other labs."

Originally Posted by chrismohr

"MM if I led you to believe that I asked Millette to follow the Bentham protocol, I am sorry. I have no memory of making such a claim."

And here I was under the impression that good investigative journalists kept careful records.

And it was not just me you fooled. It was how you presented Dr. Millette's research to everyone!

Let me refresh your memory;

Originally Posted by chrismohr

"1.) His [Dr. Millette] intention is to replicate the tests done in the Bentham study... The Bentham paper does not report on having done a normal envirnmental forensic study of the components so Dr. Millette will do that, plus everything they did, plus other tests as needed."

formatting changes are mine

Originally Posted by chrismohr

"MM, sigh, I thought Jim Millette was going to do a DSC test and he later decided not to because there was no evidence of thermitic material. He is going to look at the DSC tests already done by the Bentham authors, and I keep asking him about the tests."

Originally Posted by chrismohr

"You're right! I don't care what MM thinks. Responding to his accusations is a waste of time. I do believe in responding to technical questions and challenges tho."

Originally Posted by chrismohr

"…My interest in seeing a DSC test comes from YOUR interest in it, and I am not at all convinced that the DSC test would I.D. the chips as thermite. As I have recently said, the readings graphs of energy release from the DSC tests of known thermitic material vs the red-grey chips in the bentham paper shows a tremendous difference, a factor of at least three times more energy release. It shows me nothing even remotely close to a match to nanothermite! JTL has said that this is because of variations in the samples or whatever, and I say, therefore it tells us nothing. The FTIR and other tests DO show us that gthe red-grey chips are NOT thermite. Until Kevin Ryan or Steven Jones release chips they believe are thermitic for testing, I will no longer waste time responding to your claim that Millette found the wrong chips."

As you know, it is really not necessary for Kevin Ryan or Dr. Jones, or Dr. Harrit etc etc., to release their WTC dust samples to Dr. Millette.

I am not obsessing about Dr. Millette's need to perform his own DSC testing, especially since I now know it is outside his ability.

But I do not understand why Dr. Millette chose not to perform tests which would have been very easy for his lab?

He could have further separated his larger magnetically isolated chips by taking a quick 'n easy resistance readings.

He could have heated the chips to +430C without involving DSC.

Many chips were removed from the WTC dust with a magnet, and because the majority appeared to be paint or other materials, there is a strong likelihood that the chips Dr. Millette selected from his pile for further testing were not a good match for those described as chips of interest by the Bentham Paper authors.

And if do not think a magnet would have picked up a large number of chips, try drawing a magnet through some ordinary beach sand and observe the results.

In a coalfiret heat/powerplant the coal burns about 750- 950 degrees celcius, so when Harrit et al says, that the temp. in the DSC must have raised to over 1400 C., then he is wrong. Flyash is made at very lower temp. And there is many different ones. Rich in iron, alu-silicates, calciumsilicates and more.

From the article page 21:

That thermitic reactions from the red/gray chips have
indeed occurred in the DSC (rising temperature method of
ignition) is confirmed by the combined observation of 1)
highly energetic reactions occurring at approximately
430 ˚C, 2) iron-rich sphere formation so that the product
must have been sufficiently hot to be molten (over 1400 ˚C
for iron and iron oxide), 3) spheres, spheroids and nonspheroidal residues in which the iron content exceeds the
oxygen content. Significant elemental iron is now present as
expected from the thermitic reduction-oxidation reaction of
aluminum and iron oxide.

Dr. Millette had the same access to the Bentham Paper as anyone with a decent Internet connection. Just the fact that he did not attempt any Resistivity Testing or Heat testing above 400C on the red layers points to his clear lack of interest in following the Paper.

That is something you're right about. He did not have any interest in following the ATM paper (why do you capitalize it? is it sacred or something?). His interest was in finding out whether there was thermite in the allegedly thermitic chips (which according to the authors, are omnipresent and thus any allegations of not being the same chips Millette tested should be sustained by more than speculation, given the amount of chips that he isolated).

He did so by (in contrast to the ATM paper) competent methods, not by replicating incompetent methods.

And you already know the he found the chips were not thermitic.

The rest of your post is nonsensical rant. The way he would have spoiled his reputation is if he had followed the inane procedures in the ATM paper in order to perform the task at hand, and that's why he didn't do them and he instead chose the proper methodology.

__________________Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.

In a coalfiret heat/powerplant the coal burns about 750- 950 degrees celcius, so when Harrit et al says, that the temp. in the DSC must have raised to over 1400 C., then he is wrong. Flyash is made at very lower temp. And there is many different ones. Rich in iron, alu-silicates, calciumsilicates and more.

From the article page 21:

That thermitic reactions from the red/gray chips have
indeed occurred in the DSC (rising temperature method of
ignition) is confirmed by the combined observation of 1)
highly energetic reactions occurring at approximately
430 ˚C, 2) iron-rich sphere formation so that the product
must have been sufficiently hot to be molten (over 1400 ˚C
for iron and iron oxide), 3) spheres, spheroids and nonspheroidal residues in which the iron content exceeds the
oxygen content. Significant elemental iron is now present as
expected from the thermitic reduction-oxidation reaction of
aluminum and iron oxide.

Of course it burns at 430 C., there is carbon matrix in it.

Carsten, I don't think that in coal power plants, coal burns at temperatures below 1000 degrees C. Temperatures are usually substantially higher, therefore almost only microspheres (cenospheres, etc.) are formed there as a typical "coal fly-ash". But in other facilities, like in various incinerators, temperatures are frequently lower than 1000 degrees and still some "microspheres" are formed there (I/we have linked some papers/sources in the past).
It follows (from my literature search) that the concentration of microspheres in the fly ash is basically proportional to the highest working temperature of these facilities.

And back to your hypothesis (very probably not the new one) that microspheres in Fig. 20 can be fly ash particles present in the paint.

(One remark first: even some perfect match of some XEDS spectrum of Bentham microsphere(s) with microspheres from authentic fly ash does not really prove anything - as well as the comparison with one sphere from thermite residue, since I have found the whole and broad "spectrum" of various XEDS for spheres from various fly ashes. It's more "cherry picking" of data than any kind of convincing evidence)

Here is "infamous" Fig. 20:

I would say that these spheres have diameters roughly about 5 micrometers, which does not seem to be a good for pigment intentionally added to the paint with supposed thickness ca 20 microns. I don't know any example of the paint, which contains fly ash as a pigment (but I can be wrong). And available specification of both Laclede and Tnemec primer does not say anything about fly ash.

Also, look at the upper-right micrograph, more specifically at the lower-left chip. I would say that some remnants of original gray layer are visible there, from which those microspheres probably were created in other chips in the image.

Most importantly, I believe that this observation (microspheres were not present in unheated chips, but were present in heated chips) of Harrit et al is basically accurate/not manipulated or so.

Mohr: His [Dr. Millette] intention is to replicate the tests done in the Bentham study... The Bentham paper does not report on having done a normal envirnmental forensic study of the components so Dr. Millette will do that, plus everything they did, plus other tests as needed."

Mohr: MM if I led you to believe that I asked Millette to follow the Bentham protocol, I am sorry. I have no memory of making such a claim.

What is going on here Mohr? You obviously said Millette would replicate Bentham paper.

Another thing, do you have any idea what Millette meant by saying he would do an "environmental forensic study"? It sounds like he was going to identify the sources of the dust in general.

Quote:

I am not at all convinced that the DSC test would I.D. the chips as thermite.

I asked you before, but could you please tell me why you think Harrit et al try to show that they had iron oxide before ignition and iron after ignition. Do you see any problem with the spheres being iron not iron oxide?

Quote:

As I have recently said, the readings graphs of energy release from the DSC tests of known thermitic material vs the red-grey chips in the bentham paper shows a tremendous difference, a factor of at least three times more energy release. It shows me nothing even remotely close to a match to nanothermite! JTL has said that this is because of variations in the samples or whatever, and I say, therefore it tells us nothing.

Unless the DSC graphs are proven to be unreliable, it tells us that Harrit´s chips release energy as fast as a known variant of superthermite. It is OK to say that you don´t understand, but then ask questions, don´t ignore. You do realize that one defining feature of superthermites and explosives is how fast they release energy?

Quote:

The FTIR and other tests DO show us that gthe red-grey chips are NOT thermite. Until Kevin Ryan or Steven Jones release chips they believe are thermitic for testing, I will no longer waste time responding to your claim that Millette found the wrong chips.

Mohr, Basile has said that the dust is full of red paint chips and Jones has made it extra clear recently that a big difference between them and the chips suspected of being thermite is that the paint becomes soft in MEK while the thermite chips remain hard. One very notable thing about Millette´s chips is that they become soft in MEK, and that suggests they belong to which group of chips?

You are being very unreasonable to MM, and given what has been said about your promises of replication, maybe you should be a bit more humble?

...
Do you see any problem with the spheres being iron not iron oxide?

Please, jtl, which sphere in the Bentham paper is iron not iron oxide?

Originally Posted by jtl

Unless the DSC graphs are proven to be unreliable, it tells us that Harrit´s chips release energy as fast as a known variant of superthermite. It is OK to say that you don´t understand, but then ask questions, don´t ignore. You do realize that one defining feature of superthermites and explosives is how fast they release energy?

How fast did they react? Can you provide a number? Something per second.
Was that "fast" in the case of Fig. 19?

What do the authors of the referenced LLNL study on actual nano-thermite say about DSC and how fast energy is released? They make a specific statement about this!

Chris said he never ASKED Millette to replicate the paper. I looks like Millette told Chris it was his intention to replicate it.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but that's how I see it.

The history is a little more complicated.

The original question was, of course: "Harrit e.al. claim there is nano-thermite in red-gray chips - is this claim true or false?"

To answer that claim, you must isolate the same kinds of chips, and the best, and only way, to do that, is to run the same tests on your own specimen that Harrit e.al. used on theirs to isolate and characterize them.

Now, knowing or at least suspecting that there are different kinds of red-gray chips, the question is: Which kind or kinds do we want to look at?

I was among those who urged Chris to ask Millette to focus on chips a-d. There are two reasons for this:
a) We suspected these chips are LaClede primer
b) Those chips are far and out the best characterized in ATM.

Now let's take a look at all specimen's that appear in ATM, and the tests that we know have been done on them, and the test results:

1. Specimens:

Chip a

Chip b

Chip c

Chip d

The MEK-soaked chip (Fig. 12-18)

DSC-chip 1 (MacKinlay 1)

DSC-chip 2 (MacKinlay 2)

DSC chip 3 (Intermont)

DSC chip 4 (White)

A chip that, post DSC, gave rise to Fig. 21

A chip that, after flame test with very hot torch, gave rise to Fig. 23 and 26

A chip that, post-DSC, gave rise to Fig. 25

The multi-layered chip (Fig. 31)

The chip that has a carbon layer (Fig. 32 and 33)

2. Tests done on these chips before DSC or flame test (destructive tests)

2.1 Chips a-d:

Magnetic attraction

Visual separation for being "red-gray chip"

Photomicrograph at 1 µm scale

BSE images at 20 µm scale (one of the four chips)

BSE image at 10 µm scale

XEDS spectrum of bulk gray layer

XEDS spectrum of bulk red layer

BSE image at 1 µm scale showing sub-micron particles in the matrix

SE image at 1 µm scale

XEDS map of five elements (chip a)

XEDS of selected, identified sub-micron particles

2.2 The MEK-soaked chip:

Magnetic attraction

Visual separation for being "red-gray chip"

Photomicrograph at 100 µm scale (badly out of focus!)

SE-image at 100 µm scale

XEDS spectrum of bulk red layer

XEDS map of five elements (post MEK-soak)

XEDS of selected, unidentified sub-micron particles/regions

2.3 The four chips tested in the DSC

Magnetic attraction

Visual separation for being "red-gray chip"

2.4 The chip from Fig. 21

Magnetic attraction

Visual separation for being "red-gray chip"

2.5 The chip from Fig. 23 and 26

Magnetic attraction

Visual separation for being "red-gray chip"

2.6 The chip from Fig. 25

Magnetic attraction

Visual separation for being "red-gray chip"

2.7 The multi-layered chip

Magnetic attraction

Visual separation for being "red-gray chip"

2.8 The carbon-layered chip

Magnetic attraction

Visual separation for being "red-gray chip"

XEDS spectrum of bulk gray layer

MEK-soaking (though no description of consistency is provided, except that the red layer has expanded and displays "porosity".)

So we see that all chips, except for the first five, have been characterized by magnetic attraction and visual appearance only before being destroyed in fire.

We see that neither DSC nor electric resistance nor anything else has been done to all chips to isolate them from all the other chips that are attracted to a magnet and that are red-gray chips.

As jtl and MM assert that many red-gray chips that are attracted to a magnet are in fact paint, they ought to admit that all these chips might indeed be just paint, or might be different from one another.

How could Millette selöect a chip like the ones that gave rise to Fig. 21, 23, 25, or the four chips that were tested in the DSC, when nothing is known about them except that they are red-gray and magnetic?

So of course Millette went for the four chips on which lots of detailed data is available: chips a-d.

And those have been showm to not contain thermite.

This means that Harrit e.al. must discard chips a-d, or revoke their conclusion that "the" red-gray chips are thermitic.

Once they discard chips a-d, they are out of evidence for anything "nano", as none of the other data shows anything in sub-micron size.

...Unless the DSC graphs are proven to be unreliable, it tells us that Harrit´s chips release energy as fast as a known variant of superthermite. It is OK to say that you don´t understand, but then ask questions, don´t ignore. You do realize that one defining feature of superthermites and explosives is how fast they release energy?
...

You are being very unreasonable to MM, and given what has been said about your promises of replication, maybe you should be a bit more humble?

Ironically, no thermite used on 911. Makes discussion a delusion based on fantasy. And you call your friend a nut on 911 issues?

The DSC in the paper prove the dust is not super-thermite. The DSC traces match soil, and burnt-wood better. But you don't seem to understand chemistry, or the purpose of DSC.

Millette found no thermite. A DSC test has a different purpose which you can't understand, or research. Jones/Harrit fooled you.

Thermite used on 911 is nonsense made up by a Jones for some idiotic idea, or he is insane. Why does Jones lie, is he insane? Jones found Harrit, who is insane on 911 issues. Where did the bad guys in Harrit's fantasy, place the 100 tons of thermite? Jones says a valid theory is in the ceiling tiles. Are Jones' claims signs of insanity, some other mental problems? Jones is very polite, and I can't figure out why he lies. I knew this guy who was very polite, and acted as personable, like Jones acts, and he had brain cancer. A mental problem could be why Jones has made up lies, since a physics has the tools to understand the WTC collapse was due to fire and impacts. The fires up to collapse were more energy than 2,500 TONS of thermite, and that is ignoring the initial jet fuel fires with more energy than 630 TONS of thermite. Who can a physicist be as dumb as Jones acts on the physics of 911?

You don't know the purpose of DSC. Did you take any chemistry courses?
Why would anyone do a DSC on unknown material? Do you know how much the equipment cost? Did Jones/Harrit steal time on DSC? Anyone out there with ruined DSC, and you don't know who messed it up?

MM thinks thermite was used on 911. A fantasy dumber than dirt. MM's version of 911 is a fantasy where thermite leaves no evidence, but is found in dust.